Roxas vs CA

G.R. # 76549, December 10, 1987

FACTS: Petitioners seek the review of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 2, 1986
and November 5, 1986 in CA-G.R. CV No. 08119 declaring appellants' Brief filed by herein petitioners
to have been filed out of time and denying their motion for reconsideration.
The petitioners filed their appeal to the CA since the RTC decided against them in their civil
case for reconveyance of title. The CA asked them to file the appellant’s brief within 45 days.
However, instead of filing the brief, petitioners herein filed multiple motions for extension with
reasons of unfinished drafts to various health problems that their counsel is suffering from. The CA
granted two 30-day extensions to the petitioners. Two days before the last extension will expire, the
petitioners filed a Motion for Last Extension praying for 15 days counted from notice. Before the
motion was resolved by the court, petitioners finally filed their brief. However, the last extension was
not granted by the CA, effectively making the brief filed 18 days beyond the granted period of
extension. As a result, the CA expunged the brief from the court records. An MR was filed by
petitioners, but denied by the CA.
The petitioner’s theory is that the CA erred in finding their brief filed out of time since it was
filed before their Motion for Last Extension was resolved. Furthermore, petitioners assert that their
Motion for Last Extension for 15 days is to be counted from notice since that is in line with the
previous resolutions of the respondent CA, then their last motion for extension of time should not
have been denied since there was no apparent intention on their part to delay the proceedings.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s theory can hold water in court.

HELD: NO. Pursuant to Section 15, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, an "extension of time for the filing
of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension
is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended." Allowance or denial of motions for
extension of time to file briefs is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
The SC observed that the brief being filed is merely 26 pages long and it consists only of simple
narration of facts and discussions of the issues, and any practicing lawyer worth his salt knows that 20
days is more than enough to be able to file said brief with proof-reading included. Moreover, the CA
even relaxed the policy that the second extension should only be for 20 days, even if the counsel of
the petitioner did not provide medical certificates that would prove his medical condition that he was
suffering from during that time. Lawyers should not presume that the courts would grant their motion
for extension more so to expect that if ever granted it would always be counted from notice thereof.